7 ms·

> Traditional media take the side that fits their story. NPR takes the side of the unempowered, even when they might be on the wrong side, other outlets have th

> Traditional media take the side that fits their story. NPR takes the side of the unempowered, even when they might be on the wrong side, other outlets have their own agendas and follow through with that. This isn't true and I think you have traditional news media confused with the "info-tainment" world. I can assure you NPR doesn't have a unified agenda that is required to be met or is run by some "cabal" locked away in a secret lair picking sides and passing down marching orders. News media is produced by a wide variety of outlets and sources. Organizations leverage both in-house staff/resources as well as thousands of external sources (AP, Reuters, ITN, et al) for producing content. Not to mention all of the smaller, independent public media stations producing content that NPR picks up. Phrases such as "it's to make their audience feel good or bad about themselves" or "You play your audience or risk losing it" are simply lazy arguments without merit.

mc32 11y ago
AP, Reuters, etc, are news gatherings orgs and are different from the NPRs huffpos, WSJs, etc. NPR, huffpo, WSJ all have their biases and a narrative they want to present for their core audience, otherwise, why would they diverge on how they present the same topic and why do the topics they cover differ? NPR is always the underdog. They also make good use of techniques to put things in whatever perspective they want. Softball questions to sympathizers, leading questions, etc. If you study propaganda, they use pretty much all the techniques. Obviously this is why they and Glenn beck and co sound the same. You don't need a cabal, you need a head of news, producers and journalists who share the same interests. Just make it all line up organizationally.
- mtbcoder 11y ago
  This is a complete over-simplification of the news media. White-washing everything as propaganda is juvenile. The Huffington Post (a private entity) is a news aggregation service that also produces some op-ed pieces. It editorializes news that other outlets have produced and provides its own opinionated analysis. This is not what NPR does. The WSJ produces both traditional news as well as provides opinion based editorials. Again, you are conflating traditional news media and with opinion based info-tainment.
  - mc32 11y ago
    I didn't say it was all propaganda but that they use techniques of propaganda to progress their point of view. You are oversimplifying in order to paint it as invalid point of view. It's interesting to note fox news has more diversity of opinion than does NPR. On NPR all minorities are progressives, yet IRL I know minorities with all points of view, but listening to them you'd think they were all progressives. So, yes, they forward their narrative very adroitly. This morning they had a piece about WalMart increasing base wages more than originally announced, and the presenter, as an aside mentioned, "I'm sure out of the goodness of their hearts". See how insidious it is? There was no reason for that, it didn't follow from what the reporter was saying. And it's this kind of technique they've mastered.
    - dpark 11y ago
      No one on NPR claims that all minorities are progressive. It's well reported, for example, that many Latinos lean conservative on many issues (anti abortion, opposed to opening relations with Cuba, etc). It's not a misrepresentation to say that, e.g., blacks tend to vote Democratic. That's factual information, and it's not the same as claiming that all minorities are progressive. No one claims this. I don't even know what "narrative" NPR would be forwarding if they claimed this. This frankly sounds a lot more like a Fox News tactic than NPR. "All minorities vote progressive!" sounds like a rallying cry to get conservatives riled up and active.
      - mc32 11y ago
        Listen to npr more critically, then. It's obvious. I prefer them over the alternatives, but they are far from impartial and free of agenda. NPR does not make that untrue claim. What happens is they predominantly interview progressives when they interview majorities or minorities. In addition most of the staff and volunteers do not lean conservative or libertarian by any measure. As I said, I wager I'd see more political diversity at fox, and that's staggering, knowing about fox.
        dpark 11y ago
- dpark 11y ago
  Do you actually ever listen to NPR? You think it sounds like Glenn Beck? Seriously? You don't have to like or support NPR, but they are absolutely not just pandering and pushing propaganda like Glenn Beck.
  - mc32 11y ago
    No, Glenn beck is an exaggerator. My point was if there were no bias they'd sound the same, but they don't, indicating everyone presents their point if view.
    - dpark 11y ago
      Everyone has bias. But NPR does a pretty good job of presenting both sides. e.g. I listened to them give significant air time a couple of weeks ago to a far right wing conservative supporting Trump's plan to block Muslims from entering the country. I listened to them let this nutso woman talk over the "progressive" trying to point out that this is unconstitutional.
      - mc32 11y ago
        Here is the thing about propaganda. You do give your opponents time, but you let them make fools of themselves, you undermine their positions, you introduce doubt into what they say, etc. If you're interested in the technique follow the Russia/ Ukraine blogs. The Russian blogs are populated by confederates. One takes a somewhat extreme view, ridiculous view --everyone will see thru it, then a second confederate comes in with the more plausible submarine view... But you can flip that. That's how you do it.
        dpark 11y ago
        Damned if they do, damned if they don't? They're propagandists for not interviewing conseratives, but if they do interview conservatives, they're somehow still propagandists. If NPR were actively selecting crazy people to represent the conservatives, that might be a reasonable accusation, but I don't believe that to be true. 65% of likely GOP voters say that they support banning Muslims from entering the country. [1] It's not propagandizing to bring a conservative on to present a position that the majority of their base supports. The proposal is absurd and frightening, but the options are to not report on it all, to not bring a conservative on air to support it, or to bring a conservative on air to support it and let them sound crazy. There is no way to say that we should ban Muslims and not sound crazy to a moderate or liberal. [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/292796480/Bloomberg-Politics-Purple-Strategies-Trump-poll http://www.scribd.com/doc/292796480/Bloomberg-Politics-Purpl...

mc32 11y ago

AP, Reuters, etc, are news gatherings orgs and are different from the NPRs huffpos, WSJs, etc. NPR, huffpo, WSJ all have their biases and a narrative they want to present for their core audience, otherwise, why would they diverge on how they present the same topic and why do the topics they cover differ? NPR is always the underdog. They also make good use of techniques to put things in whatever perspective they want. Softball questions to sympathizers, leading questions, etc. If you study propaganda, they use pretty much all the techniques. Obviously this is why they and Glenn beck and co sound the same. You don't need a cabal, you need a head of news, producers and journalists who share the same interests. Just make it all line up organizationally.

mtbcoder 11y ago
This is a complete over-simplification of the news media. White-washing everything as propaganda is juvenile. The Huffington Post (a private entity) is a news aggregation service that also produces some op-ed pieces. It editorializes news that other outlets have produced and provides its own opinionated analysis. This is not what NPR does. The WSJ produces both traditional news as well as provides opinion based editorials. Again, you are conflating traditional news media and with opinion based info-tainment.
- mc32 11y ago
  I didn't say it was all propaganda but that they use techniques of propaganda to progress their point of view. You are oversimplifying in order to paint it as invalid point of view. It's interesting to note fox news has more diversity of opinion than does NPR. On NPR all minorities are progressives, yet IRL I know minorities with all points of view, but listening to them you'd think they were all progressives. So, yes, they forward their narrative very adroitly. This morning they had a piece about WalMart increasing base wages more than originally announced, and the presenter, as an aside mentioned, "I'm sure out of the goodness of their hearts". See how insidious it is? There was no reason for that, it didn't follow from what the reporter was saying. And it's this kind of technique they've mastered.
  - dpark 11y ago
    No one on NPR claims that all minorities are progressive. It's well reported, for example, that many Latinos lean conservative on many issues (anti abortion, opposed to opening relations with Cuba, etc). It's not a misrepresentation to say that, e.g., blacks tend to vote Democratic. That's factual information, and it's not the same as claiming that all minorities are progressive. No one claims this. I don't even know what "narrative" NPR would be forwarding if they claimed this. This frankly sounds a lot more like a Fox News tactic than NPR. "All minorities vote progressive!" sounds like a rallying cry to get conservatives riled up and active.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Listen to npr more critically, then. It's obvious. I prefer them over the alternatives, but they are far from impartial and free of agenda. NPR does not make that untrue claim. What happens is they predominantly interview progressives when they interview majorities or minorities. In addition most of the staff and volunteers do not lean conservative or libertarian by any measure. As I said, I wager I'd see more political diversity at fox, and that's staggering, knowing about fox.
      - dpark 11y ago
dpark 11y ago
Do you actually ever listen to NPR? You think it sounds like Glenn Beck? Seriously? You don't have to like or support NPR, but they are absolutely not just pandering and pushing propaganda like Glenn Beck.
- mc32 11y ago
  No, Glenn beck is an exaggerator. My point was if there were no bias they'd sound the same, but they don't, indicating everyone presents their point if view.
  - dpark 11y ago
    Everyone has bias. But NPR does a pretty good job of presenting both sides. e.g. I listened to them give significant air time a couple of weeks ago to a far right wing conservative supporting Trump's plan to block Muslims from entering the country. I listened to them let this nutso woman talk over the "progressive" trying to point out that this is unconstitutional.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Here is the thing about propaganda. You do give your opponents time, but you let them make fools of themselves, you undermine their positions, you introduce doubt into what they say, etc. If you're interested in the technique follow the Russia/ Ukraine blogs. The Russian blogs are populated by confederates. One takes a somewhat extreme view, ridiculous view --everyone will see thru it, then a second confederate comes in with the more plausible submarine view... But you can flip that. That's how you do it.
      - dpark 11y ago
        Damned if they do, damned if they don't? They're propagandists for not interviewing conseratives, but if they do interview conservatives, they're somehow still propagandists. If NPR were actively selecting crazy people to represent the conservatives, that might be a reasonable accusation, but I don't believe that to be true. 65% of likely GOP voters say that they support banning Muslims from entering the country. [1] It's not propagandizing to bring a conservative on to present a position that the majority of their base supports. The proposal is absurd and frightening, but the options are to not report on it all, to not bring a conservative on air to support it, or to bring a conservative on air to support it and let them sound crazy. There is no way to say that we should ban Muslims and not sound crazy to a moderate or liberal. [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/292796480/Bloomberg-Politics-Purple-Strategies-Trump-poll http://www.scribd.com/doc/292796480/Bloomberg-Politics-Purpl...